For the morning after pill to be banned then it would have to be legally agreed upon that life starts at conception. If that happened then the morning after pill would legally be considered murder and all laws and penalties that deal with murder would be in effect. If this happend then obviously pro-lifers would see absolutely no need to change the laws and penalties that deal with murder.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

I didn't ask what you equated it with. The argument starts with a basis of the morning-after pill being illegal because of a legal definition of life beginning at conception. If life begins at conception then the 8-hour old egg IS a human and you ARE murdering it. Again, if anyone knowingly and wilfully breaks the law and commits murder (as defined under that law) then I would expect them to ACCEPT the CONSEQUENCES of THEIR ACTIONS. Wouldn't you?

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

That's not the argument we are working from. We are working from the argument that it would be legally considered murder as it would legally be considered alive. In such an instance, it would be murder. Plain and simple.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

That's like me asking if your parents know you are homosexual? You can only answer yes or no, by the way. How can someone go to jail for something that is not currently illegal? The very question you purpose requires certain assumptions.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

Do you believe someone should go to jail or be placed in a locked-down psychiatric hospital for murdering their baby?

I think that's very easy to answer, and the answer is yes, of course.

If life begins at conception, and an 8-hour old fertilized egg is the same as a baby, then shouldn't someone who takes the morning after pill face the same punishment as someone who kills their baby. Aren't they the same thing?

We as a society usually have compasion for a woman who kills her baby and even though we might not want her to spend the rest of her life in jail, we want to make sure she is a least placed in a locked-down psychiatric hospital for a long, long time.

Since an 8-hour old fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby should we as a society feel the same compasion for a woman who takes the morning after pill? Shouldn't we place her in a locked-down psychiatri hospital for a long, long time?

Let me make this as easy as possible for you to try and answer.

If a woman kills her new born baby, should she spend anytime in jail or in a locked-down psychiatric hospital? This being a hypothetical question, how long is appropriate, 0 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? life?

Do YOU feel she should spend the same amount of time locked-up for taking the morning after pill?

I was wondering what percentage of pro-lifers would be Ok with the police going to their best friends house and taking their 17 year old daughter away to jail for 20 years for taking the morning after pill, and I guess I can put you in the column that would be Ok with that.

Well then, she's already made her decision. The only reason someone would have unprotected sex (or even protected, since condoms are only 97% effective in the first place) is if they've decided that they are ready to accept the responsibility of rearing a child. I don't understand your dilemma.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

Why are you voiding her of responsibility. If I put one round in a gun, give it a spin, and pull the trigger then I am responsible for the outcome regardless of whether or not I intended to kill myself (or someone else). She did something with a known consequence (baby or disease) and you wish to abdicate her of the responsibility for her actions by letting her take a morning after pill? If she'd gotten AIDs you wouldn't have a pill to give her for that. I say we start teaching our children responsibility. This means they have to take responsibility for their actions. She had sex (unprotected or not, she could still get pregnant), she got pregnant, she is now responsible for the life she created (as is the father). Quit raising a country of victims. I daresay that we'd be rid of half our problems in this world if people would just be responsible for their own actions.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

You are forcing her to carry an 8-hour old fertilized egg to term or going to jail for commiting a murder. I am allowing her the choice of taking the morning after pill and moving forward with her life.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the child is the known consequence of her action and she chose to do the action anyhow. You are trying to relieve her of responsibility. There's a whole generation of people out there today who do not believe in taking responsibility for their actions. If we started making people responsible for their actions, then just maybe we would have a generation of responsible people making mature decisions. We don't. And it is precisely because of attitudes like yours.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

So you must believe the South Dakota anti-abortion law is wrong becase it doesn't punish the woman. You must believe it relieves her of her responsibilities because it doesn't put her in jail for 20 years.

You also must believe it relieves the doctor of some of his responsibilities because it only places him in jail for 5 years.

Actually I'd said you wanted to relieve her of her responsibilities. That being said, the South Dakota abortion bill is a half-hearted attempt at banning abortion. Any woman could go to another non-banned state and get the procedure. And I think 5 years is actually a very short time for pre-meditated murder. And I'm not sure how it is that you believe punishment somehow relieves responsibility... If I decide to kill someone and am willing to do the time for my crime, am I somehow no longer responsible of it because I accepted the punishment? You can ignore your responsibilities, but you can not be relieved of them.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

I see only two ways taking the "morning-after" pill can be considered "murder," and both of them are easily refuted.

1.) The morning-after pill would kill less cells than a pin-prick on the underside of your finger. Using that logic, we ought to make it illegal for anyone to touch their own body for fear of destroying their innocent skin cells, which have just as much thinking capacity as a zygote: none.

2.) You can argue that you're committing murder by ending the potential life of a person, but by that reasoning, a women is committing murder with every single egg down the toilet.

And you're going to ruin her life by putting her in jail for 20 years for taking the morning after pill.

That's nuts.

Nuts?! You're saying putting her in jail is nuts? What about... killing the baby? Now that baby has no time to live at all; whether in jail or not in jail! Now THAT is nuts.

Irresponsibility is her fault and she should face the music, not the innocent baby. Killing someone so you can avoid responsibility for your own actions is also nuts.

And the morning after pill does not completely prevent pregnancies. I think girls should be more aware of that. But going into unprotected sex is an action performed by the woman and if she concieves, she has nobody to blame but herself. A woman must take responsibility for her baby or not get into sex at all.

The morning after pill gives the girl a false sense of security when she gets into sex. It is not nearly as effective as they believe, and then, when the baby is conceived, they feel justified in getting it aborted because they now know the uselessness of the pill and can blame it.

Whether abortion is banned or not, I definitely believe that something like the morning-after pill should be declared illegal. At least then the women will not be deceived by its ineffectiveness.

-------I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.

And the morning after pill does not completely prevent pregnancies. I think girls should be more aware of that. But going into unprotected sex is an action performed by the woman and if she concieves, she has nobody to blame but herself. A woman must take responsibility for her baby or not get into sex at all.

The morning after pill gives the girl a false sense of security when she gets into sex. It is not nearly as effective as they believe, and then, when the baby is conceived, they feel justified in getting it aborted because they now know the uselessness of the pill and can blame it.

When it was said sending someone to prison for twenty years was "nuts," the issue was over the morning-after pill itself being murder, not abortion as a result of the pill's possible failure.

Quote from Prototype at 08:51 AM on March 25, 2006 :Sorry, I thought the things I had said already implied that abortion was murder.

Well, I'll say it just for the record. Abortion is Murder, and I believe taking something like the morning-after pill should also be considered murder.

(Edited by Prototype 3/25/2006 at 08:58 AM).

So you must thing the South Dakota abortion law doesn't go far enough. You should be outraged that the Doctor only gets 5 years and the woman gets away with murder.

I am in no way outraged by that law. That law prohibits abortion for any case unless it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think that law is correct and those who don't like it can protest.

Considering that abortion happens to be "murder" I think a doctor should be charged with premeditated murder along with the mother. Now, I understand that a lot of the mothers are frequently pressured into getting abortions, so that may vary.

I applauded the new S.D. Law. Before then, any abortion could be done. Now none can be done with exceptions to save the mother. I am not outraged that it makes an exception in extreme cases, I'm happy that it prohibits any abortions otherwise.

I think the morning-after pill is a deliberate action by the woman made to kill any possible infant created inside her. Mostly because she wants to get into sex without the consequences of bearing a child. Now I realize the pill is not really effective a lot of the time, but the intentions behind it are irresponsible and selfish. Such things should be illegal.

-------I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.

Clearly the morning after pill isnt murder. They are not intentionally 'killing' as you Pro Choice people put it, a child. Its just making sure that the woman doesnt become pregnant from that night. What it kinda seems like to me in a lesser sence is that you would jail a guy for shoting blanks if u jail a woman for taking the morning after pill. just a thought probably makes no sence

Here is what the morning after pill is about. IT stops the woman been pregnant before she acctually knows. A bit like The pill. But if your a big fan of the bible then clearly you dont belive in condoms. BUt anywayhttp://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htmhttp://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htm

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, only Catholics don't believe in contraception. They also don't believe in abortion. They also don't believe in sex before marriage. Therefore, from a Catholic point of view, I'm unsure what the predicament is. From a Christian point of view, there is no mention in the bible regarding contraception. Although we agree with the other two points as they ARE found in the bible.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

I think that it is pretty obvious that fetus younger than 6 months does not have any qualities of a Human, not even the ability to psihologicaly feel pain. Fetus is a POTENTIAL human, not an actual human.Any punishment for killing a ball of 150 cells is pure insanity. Several days old fetus has no real individuality. It merely has unique DNA (semi-unique, actually since half of its DNA is from mother and half from father), but every human corpse also has unique DNA and no one here fights for rights of the corpses. A brain of the fly consists of several thousands cells and no one complains about killing flies.

(Edited by 42ndEndOfTheWorld 7/23/2006 at 11:46 AM).

-------I teach you the overman. Man is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?(...)Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth!I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not.Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go. Nietzsche, Thus spoke Zarathustra

Ok, when you or your spouse are five months and twenty nine days pregnant and someone comes along and injures you (or her) so that the baby is killed remember that. Oh well, nothing worse than swatting a fly.

-------"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.

Look, I have right to take a baseball bat and destroy my car. I have every right to destroy my property. However if someone else destroys my car, that is a crime.Same with fetus. If woman feels that carrying a fetus for several weeks was a bad idea, she has every right to abort. But if someone else destroys fetus, that's crime. Fetus older than 6 moths is not a property (although it is not a human either) becouse it can psyhologicaly feel pain.

(Edited by 42ndEndOfTheWorld 7/23/2006 at 12:30 PM).

(Edited by 42ndEndOfTheWorld 7/23/2006 at 12:56 PM).

-------I teach you the overman. Man is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?(...)Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth!I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not.Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go. Nietzsche, Thus spoke Zarathustra